For Editors
What handling a manuscript requires
Editors provide scholarly stewardship by overseeing peer review and upholding publication ethics. This page sets out what Journal of ADHD And Care asks of an editor handling a submission, from the first scope judgment to escalation.
It describes editorial responsibility, not editorial privilege. Publisher responsibilities — production, invoicing, the platform and the preservation of the record — sit with the publisher and are not the editor’s to carry.
The standard
Judgment that protects the science and the reading of it
An editor’s job is to make sure a published claim is one the evidence can carry, and that a reader can tell what kind of claim it is. That applies as much to a careful observational study as to a trial.
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
Scope
The first judgment on any manuscript is whether it makes a substantive research question, analysis, method, interpretation, or contribution about ADHD or about ADHD-related care. Studying or recruiting people with ADHD does not by itself establish fit.
Scope is judged on what the manuscript contributes, not on the discipline it comes from. Basic, methodological, theoretical, observational, review and policy work are all eligible.
Conflicts
Editors declare any financial, professional or personal relationship that could affect their judgment of a manuscript, and hand the manuscript to another editor where one exists.
Editors recuse themselves from decisions on their own submissions; those manuscripts are handled independently.
Choosing reviewers
Reviewers are selected for subject expertise relevant to the manuscript’s question and method, and are checked for conflicts before they are invited.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Confidentiality
A submitted manuscript is confidential. Its existence, content and the identity of its authors are not discussed outside the editorial process, and it is not shared with anyone who is not part of that process.
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Deciding
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Editorial decisions remain independent of fees, services, memberships, and roles.
A decision is reasoned from the manuscript and the reviews. Where reviewers disagree, the editor weighs the arguments rather than counting the recommendations, and says in the decision letter what carried the most weight.
Reading the evidence
Claims are assessed against the design that produced them. Association, prediction, efficacy and clinical-use claims each call for different evidence, and a manuscript is read against the claims it actually makes.
Eligibility rests on the contribution a manuscript makes and on how accurately it describes its own evidence. Theoretical, observational, methodological and review work is judged by the standards of its own kind.
Use of AI
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Integrity concerns
A concern about authorship, data, images, duplication or undisclosed conflicts is paused rather than decided. The editor raises it with the authors, and where it is not resolved, with their institution.
Where a concern affects an article already published, the outcome is published as its own citable notice, linked to the original.
Escalating
Anything an editor cannot resolve within these terms — a suspected breach of integrity, an appeal, a conflict with no alternative handling editor — goes to the editorial office rather than being settled case by case.